I think that individual stats do provide insight into how a player will perform throughout the season. The small sample size needs to be weighed, but if a hitter consistently is hitting in spring training, I would think that would be an indicator of future performance.

You are taking the quote out of context. Ventura also said after a bad outing by a pitcher this year that he didn't have to worry about making the team.

Obviously, if you have two players who aren't proven at the major-league level and looking to make the team, you are going to judge them by how well they perform. In the case of Gillaspie and Morel, you also will have to factor in that Morel has options left. Gillaspie could prove to be a steal for the Sox as someone they got cheaply from a championship team where he didn't have a place with no options left. If Gillaspie shows enough, not just with stats, but with ability, it might not matter how good Morel's stats are.

I'm not comparing Gillaspie to Denny McLain (you've recalled his failure to make the Sox a few times), but there ware considerations much more important than spring training stats.

You are taking the quote out of context. Ventura also said after a bad outing by a pitcher this year that he didn't have to worry about making the team.

Obviously, if you have two players who aren't proven at the major-league level and looking to make the team, you are going to judge them by how well they perform. In the case of Gillaspie and Morel, you also will have to factor in that Morel has options left. Gillaspie could prove to be a steal for the Sox as someone they got cheaply from a championship team where he didn't have a place with no options left. If Gillaspie shows enough, not just with stats, but with ability, it might not matter how good Morel's stats are.

I'm not comparing Gillaspie to Denny McLain (you've recalled his failure to make the Sox a few times), but there ware considerations much more important than spring training stats.

Especially the young players, you have to watch them carefully. The varied abilities of the players they face in spring training make "good" stats ridiculously unreliable.

Especially the young players, you have to watch them carefully. The varied abilities of the players they face in spring training make "good" stats ridiculously unreliable.

At baseball-reference.com they've introduced spring stats this year and they have a rudimentary little tool that shows the level of competition the player has been facing. Not perfect, but it helps balance out the bias a little.

As for stats themselves, they don't matter much for guys who are assured a spot on the Opening Day roster, as this is a time to get ready for the season, work on some stuff, etc. I think Peavy said yesterday in his start against San Diego when he allowed 3 runs in 3 innings, he was working on his fastball so he threw that pitch almost exclusively. But for guys fighting for the last roster spot, I think there is some minor importance to them, but like a lot of baseball, a lot depends on the eye test, as well.

At this point, I want them to care because i'm sick of the lifeless Aprils the team always seemed to have under Ozzie. I have no idea if its tied into the importance the manager puts on spring training, but i'd rather see the team treat these games like they matter just in case.

At baseball-reference.com they've introduced spring stats this year and they have a rudimentary little tool that shows the level of competition the player has been facing. Not perfect, but it helps balance out the bias a little.

As for stats themselves, they don't matter much for guys who are assured a spot on the Opening Day roster, as this is a time to get ready for the season, work on some stuff, etc. I think Peavy said yesterday in his start against San Diego when he allowed 3 runs in 3 innings, he was working on his fastball so he threw that pitch almost exclusively. But for guys fighting for the last roster spot, I think there is some minor importance to them, but like a lot of baseball, a lot depends on the eye test, as well.

That sort of illustrates how meaningless sping training stats are. If you're a veteran pitcher assured of your role with the team, you may be working on a new pitch or, in the case of some pitchers, saving some of your best stuff for the regular season because it puts additional cumulative strain on your arm and you may want to save that for when it counts.

Veteran position players may take different approaches to their hitting in the spring than they do during the regular season. Sometimes, the better your competition, the less they are competing. Sometimes the players with the biggest incentives to have the best stats to make the team are better than higher-paid players in front of them. Sometimes they perform better because they are the only ones playing for something. The stats tell you nothing that that eye test doesn't.

That sort of illustrates how meaningless sping training stats are. If you're a veteran pitcher assured of your role with the team, you may be working on a new pitch or, in the case of some pitchers, saving some of your best stuff for the regular season because it puts additional cumulative strain on your arm and you may want to save that for when it counts.

Veteran position players may take different approaches to their hitting in the spring than they do during the regular season. Sometimes, the better your competition, the less they are competing. Sometimes the players with the biggest incentives to have the best stats to make the team are better than higher-paid players in front of them. Sometimes they perform better because they are the only ones playing for something. The stats tell you nothing that that eye test doesn't.

I agree, especially early in Spring when guys are just trying to get work in and shake off the rust. I think stats toward the later part of the Spring are more valuable in that regard, but you're still looking at a sample size of only 1-2 weeks at best. I think we can pull a couple of 10-game spans out of Gordon Beckham's career in which he might seem like a Hall of Famer, but on whole his career has been incredibly disappointing.

I agree, especially early in Spring when guys are just trying to get work in and shake off the rust. I think stats toward the later part of the Spring are more valuable in that regard, but you're still looking at a sample size of only 1-2 weeks at best. I think we can pull a couple of 10-game spans out of Gordon Beckham's career in which he might seem like a Hall of Famer, but on whole his career has been incredibly disappointing.

It seems to me that usually the most you can garner from spring training stats from a veteran is if something is wrong with him. If a guy is getting lit up consistently in his last few starts in spring training that might be a sign of bad things to come. But as you stated earlier, spring training is really more about the eye test than anything else.

It's hard to take anything at all of value from Spring Training stats. What Doub said about Peavy is a prime example. Pitchers are often more worried about working on one particular pitch than actually getting people out. So not only did Peavy's numbers look awful, the hitters that knew to look exclusively for fastballs had their numbers artificially padded.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred

This is the major leagues so get it how you live and letís fight tomorrow.